Social Welfare: Who gets the benefits?

Mana (Auckland), Volume 2, Issue 4, 18 May 1978, Page 7

Social Welfare: Who gets the benefits?

Tokelauans, Cook Islanders, Niueans, in New Zealand, are they New Zealand citizens . . . or aren’t they? If they are, .do they have the same rights as all other New Zealand citizens; if they are not, what rights do they have? LEGISLATION COVERING CITIZENSHIP — British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act, 1948: * “New Zealand” includes the Cook Islands and the Tokelau Islands.’ — which means that Cook Islanders and Tokelau Islanders are New Zealand citizens. Or are they? — Acts Interpretation Act, 1924: ‘ ’’the colony”, “this colony”, “the Dominion” and “New Zealand”, when used as a territorial description, means the Dominion of New Zealand, comprising all islands and territories within the limits thereof for the time being, othei than the Cook Islands and do noi include to the Tokelau Islands oi

Niue.’ In other words, while it may have been decided that Tokelau and Cook Islanders are to be called New Zealand citizens and, in the case of Tokelau, they will be administered by New Zealand, they do not actually live in ‘New Zealand’. Or do they? Tokelau Act, 1948: ‘The Tokelau Islands are hereby declared to form part of New Zealand.’ WIDOWS BENEFIT REFUSED Now, this may sound like a lot of arguing over fine print and splitting of hairs, but to many thousands of people, particularly Tokelau and Cook Islanders living on the N.Z. mainland, the consequences of these three contradictory pieces of legislation can be very important. ACORD was recently approached by a Cook Island woman whose husband had died, leaving her to support a young family. She applied to the Department of Social Welfare

for a widow’s benefit, but was told that, as she did not fulfil the residential qualifications of having lived in New Zealand for three years, she was not entitled to one. She was not told by the Department that she was entitled to apply for an emergency benefit on grounds of hardship. It was not until ACORD took up the case that an emergency benefit was granted. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE REGULATIONS As a result of this case, we approached the Department of Social Welfare to ask how it was that people from the Tokelau and Cook Islands, who were N.Z. citizens, were not entitled to Social Welfare benefits on the same terms as any other N.Z. citizens. We were first referred to the British Nationality and N.Z. Ctizenship Act, 1948. This Act, however only supported our argument, that Cook and Tokelau Islanders are N.Z.citizens and should therefore be afforded the same rights as N.Z. citizens.

We next approached the head of the Benefits Section at Auckland and asked which legislation his departmental policy was based on. The Auckland office referred us to the Social Security Commission in Wellington which is responsible for drafting Social Welfare departmental regulations on the basis of the Social Security Act and other relevant legislation. We requested clarification of the Social Welfare policy, and asked which Act of Parliament referred specifically to Tokelau, Cook, and Niue Islanders in terms of eligibility for Social Security benefits. The Director General of Social Welfare, Mr Callahan, replied, quoting Section 4 of the Act Interpretation Act (see page 1). He stated that, “residence in N.Z. for the purposes of the Social Security Act is taken as meaning actually being within the territory of N.Z. as defined in Section 4 of the Acts Interpretation Act/’ In other words there is no Act of Parliament which refers specifically to Tokelau, Cook and Niue Islanders with regard

to Social Welfare benefits, and the current policy is based on just one of the three Acts the Department could choose from. “EQUALITY’’ FOR ALL Mr Callahan went on to say that “Island peoples are eligible for social security benefits if they meet the statutory criteria which apply equally to all applicants.” Equally? Under reciprocal agreement with their respective governments, British and Australian citizens are eligible for benefits without having to fulfil the lengthy residential qualifications. The Report of the Department of Social Welfare for 1975 states that, “residence in Australia or the United Kingdom . . . may be regarded as residence in N.Z. In addition birth in either country may be regarded as birth in N.Z.” So it would seem that persons born in Australia and the U.K. have more rights in N.Z. than some N.Z. citizens. When asked whether any reciprocal agree-. ments similar to those with Australia and the U.K. were being instituted for Tokelau, Cook Islands, and Niue, Mr Callahan said that “the bassis of: reciprocal agreements is that both signatories involved afford similar treatment to persons who travel between them. It follows that to have any basis for a reciprocal agreement with the Pacific- Island groups you mention there needs to be similar benefits available in the Islands to New Zealanders who may take up residence there. There must of necessity be a two way exchange.” This agrument might have some basis where the Niue and Cook Islands are concerned, as these islands have their own administrations (although we still wonder why Australian and

British citizens have priority over N.Z. citizens in these reciprocal agreements). The Tokelau Islands, however, come under the direct administration of the N.Z. government. What the Social Security Commission is saying in their case, is that the N.Z. government is not prepared to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with the administration of the Tokelau Islands (i.e. the N.Z. government), because the N.Z. government cannot offer the N.Z. government -a good enough deal in return. The result of all this bureaucratic gobbledygook is that N.Z. citizens on the N.Z. mainland are being denied their rights as N.Z. citizens. NO INTERPRETERS In his letter, Mr Callahan further states that, “in cases where applicants do not meet the residential qualifications, there is provision to pay an emergency benefit on grounds of hardship. ” While this may be true in theory, it is our experience that all too often people are not told that they are entitled to apply for emergency benefits, but are simply told that they are entitled to apply for emergency benefits, but are simply told that they do not qualify for the particular benefit they applied for. Similarly, people whose initial applications have been refused are often not aware of their right to appeal against those decisions, or are given wrong or misleading advice by Social Welfare employees who are themselves not fully conversant with appeal There is an urgent need for improvement in staff training and staff communication with benefit applicants, and for full-time qualified, interpreters to be available whenever necessary. From ‘Social Welfare — Who gets the benefits’ Published by A.C.0.R.D., 1978